Your logic is completely skewed there. Because Federer has better results than Nadal overall, you are assuming he’s the better player. Not so. Nadal is clearly the better player without a shred of a doubt. He’s dominated Federer entirely on clay and hard. Only on grass, they are equal but Nadal would come on top if they were to meet one more time.

Sampras, on the other hand, dominated Agassi on US hard courts whereas Agassi dominated Sampras on AO hard courts (different surfaces btw). While Sampras dominated Agassi on grass, Agassi dominated Sampras on clay. Pretty even steven there unlike the other one; therefore, the former presents far more interest. But more importantly, 90s offered much more variety in terms of surfaces so the challenges were also different and more intriguing – not to mention, all these different surfaces provided a much more complicated rivalry.

As to the full blown rivalry, Sampras vs Agassi rivalry is already in the past. We saw its start, middle and the end. And Federer vs Nadal are near the end as well. Perhaps another couple of years at best or so but the fate is already written all over the wall. Murray vs Djokovic has only begun and we are not even sure if it's going to make it all the way to a proper 'rivalry'.

Anyway, I have put together up some of the best matches from 2012 from different sources and Djokovic vs Murray AO semi, and also their Shanghai final comes up from time to time. And also, Nadal vs Djokovic AO final, Murray vs Federer Wimbledon final etc.

Your logic is completely skewed there. Because Federer has better results than Nadal overall, you are assuming hes the better player. Not so.

Your arguments are easy to pick apart because I use your words against you. You don't get anywhere trying to put your words in my mouth. You won't be able to find this because I didn't say it. So extrapolating upon something I didn't say is nonsense. But that's par for the course.

Why did you think this point escaped me? You don't know clay and rebound ace are "the" slower surfaces? I took it for granted that you knew that. My mistake for giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Quote

While Sampras dominated Agassi on grass, Agassi dominated Sampras on clay. Pretty even steven there unlike the other one; therefore, the former presents far more interest.

First, you merely paraphrased but overstated exactly what I stated: Agassi > on slow surfaces, Sampras > on fast surfaces. Further, you measure domination by 1 match at RG (QF) and 2 at W, one of which ended 62, 62, 36, 36, 64 (QF).

Quote

But more importantly, 90s offered much more variety in terms of surfaces so the challenges were also different and more intriguing  not to mention, all these different surfaces provided a much more complicated rivalry.

Not so. It should be obvious that the differences did quite the opposite: Sampras's advantages were greater on faster surfaces and vice versa. Uniform surfaces promote uniformity across majors: Fedal/Big 4, RG being the exception only because Rafa is the GOAT. But for Rafa, Roger has cleaned everyone's clocks. Rafa's supremecy distorts Federer's prowess on clay. But Rafa beat Fed in the finals of AO (4x winner) and Wimbledon (7x winner). Agassi never beat Sampras at USO (5x winner) or Wimbledon (7x winner).

Quote

As to the full blown rivalry, Sampras vs Agassi rivalry is already in the past. We saw its start, middle and the end. And Federer vs Nadal are near the end as well. Perhaps another couple of years at best or so but the fate is already written all over the wall.

Then "full blown" isn't your main criteria, rather it's of lesser importance though you stated above it was of "main" importance: "mainly because, they are both fully blown rivalries." McEnroe et. al., Navratilova-Evert are, by definition, definitely full blown. OK, so the freshness of the rivalry is the most important factor to you. Now I understand why you discount the others.

I hope this helps you understand why your agruments amount to a bowl of word salad.

I also think that you still need either Fed or Rafa there, either across from each other or across from Novak or Andy, to give the match an edge, a sense of something at stake beyond whether the rallies are interesting or uninteresting.

That said, I want to like Djokovic vs. Murray. I enjoy their games, their personalities, and their individual rivalries with Federer and Nadal. But of all of their matches this year and last, the only one that struck me as memorable for something other than length was the final in Shanghai. It seems like their playing styles, which are similar in their reliance on consistency and defense, tend to irritate, rather than inspire, each other.

Rafa-Roger rivalry transcended the sport of tennis and brought in the masses, their unique careers; forever intertwined is considered by most experts as the greatest ever.

Regardless of taste and preferences....it is what it is.

And if you were that clueless not to notice while it played out before your very eyes, just Wikipedia it. The following generations of tennis fans are only going to know what they read about the rivalry, and what they'll read will sound a lot like this:

"The Federer–Nadal rivalry is between two professional tennis players, Roger Federer of Switzerland and Rafael Nadal of Spain. They are currently engaged in a storied rivalry, which many consider to be the greatest in tennis history.[1][2][3][4][5]"

[1] "Federer-Nadal rivalry as good as it gets". International Herald Tribune (Associated Press). 7 July 2008. Retrieved 2009-02-14.[2] Weaver, Paul (7 July 2008). "Move over McEnroe and Borg (Sacre Bleu!!! this one will run and run in the memory". London: The Guardian. Retrieved 2009-02-14.[3] Flanagan, Martin (12 July 2008). "Federer v Nadal as good as sport gets". Melbourne: The Age. Retrieved 2009-02-14.[4] Bodo, Peter (30 January 2009). "Rivalry!". Peter Bodo's Tennisworld. Tennis.com. Retrieved 2009-02-14.[5] a b MacGregor, Jeff (3 February 2009). "Greatest rivalry of the 21st century?". ESPN.com. Retrieved 2009-02-14.

Rafa-Roger rivalry transcended the sport of tennis and brought in the masses, their unique careers; forever intertwined is considered by most experts as the greatest ever.

Regardless of taste and preferences....it is what it is.

And if you were that clueless not to notice while it played out before your very eyes, just Wikipedia it. The following generations of tennis fans are only going to know what they read about the rivalry, and what they'll read will sound a lot like this:

"The Federer–Nadal rivalry is between two professional tennis players, Roger Federer of Switzerland and Rafael Nadal of Spain. They are currently engaged in a storied rivalry, which many consider to be the greatest in tennis history.[1][2][3][4][5]"

[1] "Federer-Nadal rivalry as good as it gets". International Herald Tribune (Associated Press). 7 July 2008. Retrieved 2009-02-14.[2] Weaver, Paul (7 July 2008). "Move over McEnroe and Borg (Sacre Bleu!!! this one will run and run in the memory". London: The Guardian. Retrieved 2009-02-14.[3] Flanagan, Martin (12 July 2008). "Federer v Nadal as good as sport gets". Melbourne: The Age. Retrieved 2009-02-14.[4] Bodo, Peter (30 January 2009). "Rivalry!". Peter Bodo's Tennisworld. Tennis.com. Retrieved 2009-02-14.[5] a b MacGregor, Jeff (3 February 2009). "Greatest rivalry of the 21st century?". ESPN.com. Retrieved 2009-02-14.

I remember my parents calling me during the fifth set of 2008 Wimbledon final to ask me..........are you watching it aren't you? they could care less about tennis.

Like I said, regardless of taste and preference; one can't deny the following this rivalry has created across the world. You have legions of people on tennis forums fighting like cats and dogs by the mere fact of who they identified themselves with.

Like I said, regardless of taste and preference; one can't deny the following this rivalry has created across the world. You have legions of people on tennis forums fighting like cats and dogs by the mere fact of who they identified themselves with.

I was beginning to think it was just me and millions of others worldwide who elevated this rivalry above 2nd echelon status...

Like I said, regardless of taste and preference; one can't deny the following this rivalry has created across the world. You have legions of people on tennis forums fighting like cats and dogs by the mere fact of who they identified themselves with.

I was beginning to think it was just me and millions of others worldwide who elevated this rivalry above 2nd echelon status...

Fangirls fighting in forums & individuals looking to improve their self-worth by identifying with winners is hardly the only criteria that should be used in defining a rivalry. There is of course, the actual quality of the tennis produced by the players.